K. Sreedhar Rao, J., JUDGMENT Substantial question of law.- In the event of transfer of vehicle without transfer of RC and insurance policy, whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the workmen of the transferee under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased-Naveen Kumar who was working as a cleaner in the goods tempo bearing registration No. KA 11 8145. The said vehicle belongs to one Yeshodamma who is the RC holder and the policy holder. The claimants say that the vehicle was purchased by one Srinivasa from RC holder without transfer of RC and the insurance. The said Srinivasa was owner-cum-driver of the tempo at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as cleaner in the tempo at the time of the accident. Srinivasa and Naveen Kumar, both of them died in the accident which occurred on 12-6-2000. 2-A. The third respondent is on record as the legal representative of deceased-Srinivasa who was the owner of the vehicle (transferee from the RC holder - Yeshodamma). The Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded the compensation to respondents 1 and 2 and directed the insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal. 3. The relevant provisions of Sections 147 and 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act are extracted hereunder: "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(1) (a) .... (b) .... (i) ...... Provided that a policy shall not be required.- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee.- (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) ..... (ii) to cover any contractual liability. (b) ..... (c) ..... (ii) to cover any contractual liability. xxx xxx xxx Section 157, Transfer of certificate of insurance.-(1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of Insurance. (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen: days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance". 4. Sri AM. Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the liability of the insurer will arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of 'an employee of the insured'. The RC holder - Yeshodamma is the insured. The deceased is not a employee of the insured. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further argued that under Section 157, the policy has to be transferred within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle. The claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the date of transfer of vehicle and the compliance of the requirements under Section 157 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the deceased-Srinivasa who was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, is not the insured and no policy was issued in his favour, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation to the employees of the owner of the vehicle who is not the insured and in whose favour the policy is not issued. 5. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Rikhi Ram and Another v Smt. Sukhrania and Others1, has laid down that whenever there is transfer of vehicle without transfer of the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer does not ceases insofar as the third party/victim is concerned even if the owner or the purchaser does not give any intimation under sub-section (2) of Section 157 of the M.V. Act. It is further observed that the insurer has right of recovery from the insured or from the transferee. 6. The contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. The insurer is a indemnifier. Insured is a indemnity holder. The essence of contract of insurance is to indemnify insured against the claim of third party. The expression 'third party' means a person who is not a party to the contract, but beneficiary of the contract and has right to enforce the terms of the contract against the insurer and the insured. Section 147 of the M.V. Act mandates that there should be compulsory coverage of insurance for (1) passengers in public transport vehicle; (2) passengers travelling in goods vehicle along with goods; and (3) the workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, employed in connection with the motor vehicle, etc. The statutory policy issued under Section 147 of the M.V. Act in common parlance is called as 'Act policy'. In the instant case, the deceased was working as a cleaner and the risk of the deceased was to be compulsorily covered under the Act policy. Whether or not the deceased was employed by the insured, by deeming effect of Section 157 of the M.V. Act, there is automatic transfer of policy along with the vehicle whether or not there is intimation to the insurer under sub-section (2) of Section 157 of the M.V. Act. The Supreme Court in the above cited case, has held that in the case of transfer of the vehicle even without transfer of policy, the liability of the insurer• shall not cease insofar as the third party is concerned. The insurer, however, has right of recovery from the insured or from the transferee. In that view of the matter, the contention that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation is untenable. The question of law is answered accordingly. 7. On the quantum, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has assessed the monthly wages at Rs. 4,000/-. The insurer, however, has right of recovery from the insured or from the transferee. In that view of the matter, the contention that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation is untenable. The question of law is answered accordingly. 7. On the quantum, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has assessed the monthly wages at Rs. 4,000/-. The claimants have not adduced any convincing evidence to prove the monthly wages as Rs. 4,000/-. The legal heir of the owner has remained absent. Therefore, there is no evidence available from the side of the insurer to prove the wages of the deceased. Keeping in view the normal wages paid to the cleaner in goods vehicle, it is reasonable to assess that the deceased was getting monthly wages of Rs. 3,000/- and computable wages for determining the compensation is taken Rs. 1,500/-. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3,37,830/- as against Rs. 4,50,440/- awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The insurer shall pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as directed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The amount in deposit shall be paid to respondents 1 and 2 equally. The amount found in excess, after disbursement, shall be refunded to the appellant. The appeal is partly allowed.